Legal Opinion

Beal v. Carolina Coal Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 20, 1923PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClauk, C. J.

The degree of care required of persons having the possession and control of dangerous explosives, such as dynamite, is of the highest kind, requiring constant caution in their care and custody. The degree of care required must be measured by the dangerous character of the article. Brittingham v. Stadiem, 151 N. C., 302; Wood v. McCabe, ib., 458; McGhee v. R. R., 147 N. C., 142; Haynes v. Gas Co., 114 N. C., 203; Horne v. Power Co., 144 N. C., 375; Witsell v. R. R., 120 N. C., 557.

It is true .that dynamite if properly bandied is harmless, but if there is negligence most serious results can…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Haynes v. Kaleigh Gas Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  2. Brittingham v. . StadiemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  3. Witsell v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
  4. McGhee v. Norfolk & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  5. Harris v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. . JordanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  2. Street v. Erskine-Ramsey Coal Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  3. Street v. . Coal Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API